Comments by lbsaltzman

I really agree about the water thrifty being punished under mandatory reductions. We pulled our lawn out 20 years ago, and do a myriad of other things to reduce water usage. Despite 120 fruit trees and other plantings our water bill is minuscule. Many people have done drought tolerant landscapes with native and Mediterranean plants. First end water wasting before punishing the thrifty amongst us.

While we are young enough to do it, we should all appoint a trusted family member of friend to tap us on the shoulder when the time comes, and say driving days are over. If we plan for it ourselves, it need not be such an emotional shock. I plan on tapering off driving slowly before it is a necessity so I am adjusted to the change.

We should be instituting dramatic mandatory rationing now. all lawn watering should be prohibited immediately, and every possible way to conserve water should be implemented. Golfers will have to play on brown lawns.

We absolutely should have been on rationing this year. Everyone should be looking at how to conserve water and not waiting for the water agencies to take action. The Goleta Water Board is very wrong to stop action.

Everybody should consider a gray water system. Consider removing most of your lawn, if you still have any. No more twenty minute showers, even after conditions improve.

You can have a lush landscape while being water thrifty. My wife and I have 120 fruit trees, roses, berries and many other plants on a third of an acre in the City of Santa Barbara. We have no irrigation and water with a hose only when plants need it. Mature trees do fine with no summer water. We try to water younger plants partially with gray water. Our water bill is extremely low, The peak this summer was $40 when we had a house guest. Most months it is less.

A note on the latest research by biological anthropologists and paleo archeologists. Our ancestors in the Paleolithic got most of their calories from a plant based diet including grains and seeds. Even Neanderthals who lived in extreme ice age conditions only ate about 25% meat in their diet. They also ate grains. The presence of grain in the diet of modern humans has been traced back 100,000 years to modern humans in Africa who ate Sorghum.

Most of the food was gathered by women and not hunted by men. Autopsies on ancient bodies of Inuit people who did eat mostly meat showed high levels of cancer present. Ancient people also got huge amounts of exercise and what meat they ate was far healthier than modern meat, even grass fed organic meat. The meat that was consumed was combined with an incredible variety of plant foods and fruit. The Paleo diet is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of the real plant based Paleo diet with moderate meat consumption. I will stick to limiting my animal protein consumption based on the solid medical evidence of the harm high meat diets cause.

First I am deeply offended at the misuse of police to stifle local beekeepers and other members of the community from vociferously protesting the sham meeting the state put on.

The use of neonicotinoid pesticides is insane. Many countries in Europe have banned this class of pesticides. The latest research shows that they do kill bees and other pollinators. And no bees equals no pollination with catastrophic consequences to the food supply.

These pesticides will also undoubtedly simply breed pesticide resistant Asian psyllids. And finally, this is the worst time of the year to spray. The neonicotinoids are systemic and work their way up the trees to the flowers which are drawing in pollinators and beneficial insects and will kill them along with damaging hummingbirds who are consumers of insects.

At last somebody has pulled back the curtain revealing that the farmer's market wizard is a not what he pretended to be. Many farmer's who are local, with in a 100 miles or so radius and organic, have been excluded to the benefit of corporate farmer's from far away. These farmers often make long drives from the central valley to sell non-organic produce at our market, while local organic farmers lack access. This is not sustainable and in the era of rising gas prices and global warming it makes no sense to support these farmers over local family farmers. When the farmers from afar can no longer afford to come we want to be sure that we have local farmers to support our need for fresh organic fruit, meat, eggs, and produce.

The board of the farmer's market should be changed to include citizens and more local farmers. The emphasis should be on local family farms, hopefully many will be organic.

The new board was elected with a mandate for change and they carried out the will of the majority of voters. The rest of this brouhaha is sour grapes. I believe that if some digging is done, it will be seen that there is a close personal relationship between some members of the accrediting committee and the former President Serban and board members left over from the previous regime.

Some of the statements in the preliminary letter are absurd on the face of it. The District Attorney has already ruled that there was no violation of the Brown Act. And it is wrong to criticize board members for probing deeply into how the college is run when that is their fiduciary responsibility. Finally how do you include an obstructionist, out-of-touch President in deliberations when you are dealing with the widespread distrust her administration engendered. I believe this letter is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate the newly elected members of the Board of Trustees and subvert the will of the voters who put them in office to clean up a mess.

For those moaning about the money, getting her terminated was cheap at the price. Her presence would have continued to be disruptive and have distracted the Board from the vital business of the College. Now we can move forward and the Board can select a new President. I am sure a more appropriate candidate will be found.

Now the Community must pull together for one more fight and defeat the sour grapes recall effort. It is a destructive move and the recall will not succeed. The five Board members who voted for change are to be congratulated.